Sorry about the dumb questions. I am deciding on IoC containers and evaluating code-based configuration paradigms. I think I understand how to leverage your approach on down the road – I thought I might as well poke the unknowns. I am also a little linq-naive.

]]>Comment on Castle MicroKernel Fluent Event Wiring by Brad Meadhttps://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring/#comment-82
Brad MeadTue, 27 Jan 2009 17:10:27 +0000/blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring.aspx#comment-82OT: @Colin
Just few a questions in regard to the class encapsulation where Subscriber encapsulates SubscriberInfo. I typically warn myself off of usage like this because I don't understand the qualities.
Is this implementation:
a) a pattern of which I am unaware
b) Does it afford quality to the container or the fluency framework?
c)?
Thanks, Brad
OT: @Colin

Just few a questions in regard to the class encapsulation where Subscriber encapsulates SubscriberInfo. I typically warn myself off of usage like this because I don’t understand the qualities.

Is this implementation:
a) a pattern of which I am unaware
b) Does it afford quality to the container or the fluency framework?
c)?

Thanks, Brad

]]>Comment on Castle MicroKernel Fluent Event Wiring by Tuna Toksozhttps://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring/#comment-81
Tuna ToksozTue, 27 Jan 2009 16:02:58 +0000/blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring.aspx#comment-81i am just trying some tricks,
Component.For<IService>()
.ImplementedBy<PublisherService>() .Subscribers(Subscriber.ForComponent<PublisherService,SubscriberService>("subscriberId",(x, y) => x.ServiceStarted += y.Subscriber));
This is possible since I'm using lambda's as delegates. I think i can process it to get the right stuff: which subscribed to what but this ForComponent<Pub,Sub> part disturbs me as it is not necessary.
i am just trying some tricks,

This is possible since I’m using lambda’s as delegates. I think i can process it to get the right stuff: which subscribed to what but this ForComponent
part disturbs me as it is not necessary.

]]>Comment on Castle MicroKernel Fluent Event Wiring by cramsayhttps://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring/#comment-80
cramsayTue, 27 Jan 2009 15:40:58 +0000/blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring.aspx#comment-80Valeriu, I agree but as Tuna has mentioned I'm not sure if that would be possible in this context. If someone can point us in the right direction....?Valeriu, I agree but as Tuna has mentioned I’m not sure if that would be possible in this context. If someone can point us in the right direction….?
]]>Comment on Castle MicroKernel Fluent Event Wiring by Tuna Toksozhttps://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring/#comment-79
Tuna ToksozTue, 27 Jan 2009 15:17:05 +0000/blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring.aspx#comment-79There is one thing that I forgot about: events can only be used on the left of += operator and unfortunately an assignment operator cannot be part of an expresssion. Agh!!!There is one thing that I forgot about: events can only be used on the left of += operator and unfortunately an assignment operator cannot be part of an expresssion. Agh!!!
]]>Comment on Castle MicroKernel Fluent Event Wiring by Valeriu Carauleanhttps://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring/#comment-78
Valeriu CarauleanTue, 27 Jan 2009 12:27:40 +0000/blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring.aspx#comment-78Will be nice to get rid of all "magic" strings.
Try add expressions and static reflection, it may be better...Will be nice to get rid of all “magic” strings.
Try add expressions and static reflection, it may be better…
]]>Comment on Castle MicroKernel Fluent Event Wiring by Tuna Toksozhttps://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring/#comment-77
Tuna ToksozTue, 27 Jan 2009 04:08:00 +0000/blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2009/01/25/castle-microkernel-fluent-event-wiring.aspx#comment-77I guess I can take i one step further with more lambdas. I guess I can take i one step further with more lambdas.
]]>Comment on The State of Windows Mobile by Christopher Fairbairnhttps://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2009/01/14/the-state-of-windows-mobile/#comment-76
Christopher FairbairnThu, 15 Jan 2009 04:22:35 +0000/blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2009/01/14/the-state-of-windows-mobile.aspx#comment-76The distinction between smartphone and pocket pc is muddled at best. With the new naming conventions it essentially boils down to the following from a consumer perspective:
Standard = non touch screen device (with cellphone)
Professional = touch screen device (with cellphone)
Classic = touch screen device (without cellphone).
The two SDKs essentially deal with issues caused by the presence (or lack of) a touchscreen. As an example the .NET CF does not support use of the standard Button control while building an application for a Windows Mobile standard device (how would the user click it?). Even a simple multiline textbox operates differently on the two types of devices.
Over time the platforms do appear to be getting closer to each other and features have migrated between them with each major release. For example the current XML based CAB file format used by Pocket PC devices was originally a Smartphone only feature.
I do agree with your comments about some of the "value added" .NET CF components (CameraCaptureDialog etc) however. Quite often they have poor consistancy across devices and leave a lot of functionality present in the native versions of the APIs inaccessable.The distinction between smartphone and pocket pc is muddled at best. With the new naming conventions it essentially boils down to the following from a consumer perspective:

The two SDKs essentially deal with issues caused by the presence (or lack of) a touchscreen. As an example the .NET CF does not support use of the standard Button control while building an application for a Windows Mobile standard device (how would the user click it?). Even a simple multiline textbox operates differently on the two types of devices.

Over time the platforms do appear to be getting closer to each other and features have migrated between them with each major release. For example the current XML based CAB file format used by Pocket PC devices was originally a Smartphone only feature.

I do agree with your comments about some of the “value added” .NET CF components (CameraCaptureDialog etc) however. Quite often they have poor consistancy across devices and leave a lot of functionality present in the native versions of the APIs inaccessable.